Respond to a voice agent's mid-call question during an Uhura phone call by supplying the call ID, question event ID, and response text.
Answer a question the voice agent asked mid-call. question_id is the event's seq.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| call_id | Yes | ||
| question_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the text is spoken to the caller, whether the call is blocked or paused while waiting, whether the answer is terminal for that question, or whether multiple answers are allowed — all critical for a mid-call interaction tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the non-obvious parameter mapping second. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why other dimensions fall short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation-style mid-call action with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves too much unsaid: the effect of 'text', the meaning of call_id, and the interaction with wait_for_event/send_instruction are all absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and all three parameters are required, yet the description only clarifies question_id ('the event's seq'), which is genuinely valuable non-obvious information. call_id and text remain completely undefined, so two of three parameters get no semantics from either schema or description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('answer') and a well-scoped resource ('a question the voice agent asked mid-call'), which is far more informative than the bare name 'answer'. However, it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent sibling send_instruction, which an agent could plausibly pick for the same intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'a question the voice agent asked mid-call' implies the trigger condition (a question event arrives during a live call), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the wait_for_event/get_call workflow that would surface such a question, and no exclusion relative to send_instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.